Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds operational details beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'No model call or profile persistence,' which clarifies side effects and computational behavior. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a two-sentence, front-loaded summary with no fluff. The primary action is stated first, and the operational qualifiers are concise. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and some behavioral context, but it lacks detail on the limit parameter, what 'watch profiles' consist of, and the exact nature of the output. The description is adequate but not fully complete, given the absence of an output schema and parameter explanations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It indirectly covers derivePreview through 'optionally deriving an unsaved deterministic proposal,' but it does not mention the limit parameter at all. This leaves a significant gap for a low-coverage schema, making the description insufficient for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (read) and the resource (saved watch profiles), and mentions an optional derivation (unsaved deterministic proposal) which distinguishes it from save_opportunity_profile and search_opportunities. It is specific and unambiguous, though 'watch profiles' could be clearer, the name disambiguates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (reading saved profiles and optionally deriving a preview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related siblings like helvabase_save_opportunity_profile or helvabase_search_opportunities. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the selection to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.